What absolute proof can you bring into this conversation that evolution occurred as you believe?

It's directly observed to happen. Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in populations over time. What you're thinking of are the consequences of evolution, not evolution itself. Common descent, for example, is a consequence of evolution.

Quote

More precise. Do you personally believe that man has evolved into something he originally was not?

Have we evolved over time? Sure. And it's easy to show. Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus between the two of them. (humans have 2 copies of each chromosome) But most human gene loci now have dozens of different alleles, in different people. All the rest of those alleles evolved.

Humans, after our species evolved, diverged into three subspecies, anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Densovans. Africans are entirely anatomically modern, while Europeans are mostly anatomically modern, with a few genes from Neandertals, and Asians are mostly anatomically modern, with a few genes from Neandertals and from Denesovans. We've matched up the genes from Neandertals and Denesovans, and they are not different species, just different subspecies.

We are not quite like early modern humans, such as Cro-magnons, but we're pretty close. So we've come a long way evolutionarily even in the past 100,000 years. The fact that there are all sorts of transitional forms of hominin from forest apes to modern humans is very good evidence (as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits) for our evolution from other primates.

Even more convincing, we don't see any transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No transitions between monkeys and humans, for example, or between gibbons and humans or between baboons and humans.

It's as certain as gravity. Actually more so. We know how evolution works, but we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.

It is true that if a new species appears, it is not necessary that the old species go extinct. However, it is quite true that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans. Apes and monkeys had diverged for a very long time before humans and forest apes diverged.

Says the man who knows evolution is an established fact of our origin.

No, you've mistaken me for someone else, I suppose. Our origin was when God gave Adam and Eve living souls.

Your body dies and returns to the earth from which it came. You, the soul, will live on, and will be given a new, imperishable body.

One of the differences between Christians who accept the way God created us, and YE creationists is of course in regards to where they place their faith. YE Creationists tend to place more faith in their modern revision of Genesis and theistic evolutionists accept the word of God as it is. Fortunately, it doesn't matter to one's salvation, unless they make an idol of their doctrines, and insist that one must believe the doctrines to be saved.

Most Christians, of course, do not believe there ever was a global flood, since the Bible does not say it was global. But again, it doesn't matter to one's salvation unless one makes an idol of one's personal belief and insist that salvation depends on it.

The exceptionally large size of the terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is not a subtle oddity to be dismissed but rather it is a glaring paradox that must be investigated. The essence of science - our belief that we exist in a rational reality - is at stake here.

Something must have been different about the world during the Mesozoic era so as to allow terrestrial animals to grow so much larger. This line of reasoning should make us wonder if there is other evidence indicating that during the Mesozoic era that the world was a dramatically different place. While we do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves the author will address the immediate curiosity by stating that yes there are other indicators that the world during the Mesozoic era was quite different from the present. To give one example, consider the global climate of Mesozoic era. For all practical purposes, everywhere on the Earth’s surface the temperature was the same. There was no ice at the poles nor was there ice at the top of the highest mountains. From the equator to the poles, and from the lowest dry valley to the highest mountain, there was no more than a few degrees difference in temperature. There are other sets of evidence as well. The gigantic dinosaurs and pterosaurs is just one of several sets of evidence giving testimony indicating that the Earth during the Mesozoic era was a very different world.

The focus of this chapter is to explain the physical limitations restricting the size of the terrestrial animals of today, thus clarifying why the gigantic animals of the Mesozoic era presents a scientific paradox. Below is a list of specific issues this chapter will address. The first three issues give the evidence clarifying the anomaly of the dinosaurs being so large. The last listed issue regarding the flight of pterosaurs will be taken up in the next chapter since the paradox of how the pterosaurs flew only becomes clear after a discussion of the science of flight.

There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:

Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs

Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs

Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs

Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown

Before starting on the first issue listed above, there needs to be a discussion of what is the mass of various dinosaurs. It would be most helpful to have accurate mass estimates of the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods.

The above is of course not a problem for creationists who already understand that the existing world is very different than the preload world. The evidence of the flood is glaring in the face of all "Christian" evolutionists, they simply refuser deny it. They prefer their own wisdom above that if God's word.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In rejecting the truth of scripture concerning the major changes that have taken place in this world, and the devolution that has been taking place, evolutionary "Christians" are completely in the dark. Opening themselves up to ever increasing forms of deception. They end up not only rejecting the testimony of scripture, but all scientific evidence supporting or revealing the same, since it will not line up with what they have already chosen to believe in contradiction to the word of God. No one can change this for them, they must make this change themselves.

The exceptionally large size of the terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is not a subtle oddity to be dismissed but rather it is a glaring paradox that must be investigated. The essence of science - our belief that we exist in a rational reality - is at stake here.

The development of more efficient lungs, including the flow-through ventilation no only found in birds, would make such large beasts possible..

Quote

Something must have been different about the world during the Mesozoic era so as to allow terrestrial animals to grow so much larger.

There is some evidence of higher oxygen levels, but this is not well-established. What is well-established is more efficient lungs and more energetic animals. (Haversian canals are found in many dinosaur bones, indicating an active and energetic lifestyle)

Quote

For all practical purposes, everywhere on the Earth’s surface the temperature was the same.

Carbon dioxide levels were higher then, and so things were warmer.

Quote

There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:

Sounds interesting...

Quote

Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs

Increase in size is limited by the fact that bones increase in strength by the square of their length, but body mass increases as the cube of the length. However:

Those four-legged titans of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, 200 million–65 million years ago, had a suite of specializations that enabled them to reach such immense proportions. With long necks, wide-opening jaws and rake-like teeth, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and their ilk swept their heads through the treetops, consuming vast amounts of foliage without expending a lot of energy moving their massive legs. Adaptations of the pelvis and limbs created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft, and hollowed-out vertebrae and relatively small heads lightened the load. Their specialized bone development made it possible for juvenile sauropods to grow quickly, putting on several tonnes per year.

Palaeontologists have long thought that these anatomical novelties arose with the large sauropods — that a burst of evolutionary specializations coincided with the explosion in size. But a slew of discoveries in recent years reveals that many important changes first showed up long before, among the relatively puny forerunners of sauropods known as the early sauropodomorphs. Paul Barrett, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, calls this group "the unsung members of the dino community".

Walking upright on two legs, the early sauropodomorphs looked nothing like the lumbering beasts that came to dominate later. But these small creatures and their descendants gradually acquired adaptations that changed how they ate, moved and breathed — in ways that would later enable sauropods to achieve their sizehttps://www.nature.com/news/2011/110713/full/475159a.html

Quote

Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs

That's an error. Muscle strength increases as the cube of its length. So matches the increased mass.

Quote

Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs

Same argument goes for giraffes. How do they do it? All blood vessels have one-way valves in them, to prevent blood from reversing. The valves in the neck vessels of giraffes are very robust,preventing very high blood pressures. So probably the same adaptation in sauropods.

Quote

Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown

They were remarkably light for their size, and aerodynamically were certainly capable of flying. The first ones must have been rather clumsy, being aerodynamically stable with long tails like that of a kite. Later ones were aerodynamcally unstable, and therefore very maneuverable.

Quote

Before starting on the first issue listed above, there needs to be a discussion of what is the mass of various dinosaurs. It would be most helpful to have accurate mass estimates of the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods.

I suggest you look for Steven Vogel's Life's Devices. It will be enlightening.

Science is constantly finding new evidence that changes the current accepted explanations. With all the discoveries of the last 200 years, can anyone say that in 100 years that all our current explanations that some call "fact" will be still held?

Science is constantly finding new evidence that changes the current accepted explanations. With all the discoveries of the last 200 years, can anyone say that in 100 years that all our current explanations that some call "fact" will be still held?

As we've discussed before, the "facts" proposed by science lend to redefining via new evidence but the direction doesn't change, it's never a slate wiped clean with new information that is contrary to previous evidence. Science is moving in the right direction.

As we've discussed before, the "facts" proposed by science lend to redefining via new evidence but the direction doesn't change, it's never a slate wiped clean with new information that is contrary to previous evidence. Science is moving in the right direction.

I am still correct, calling the best explanation with the current evidence a "fact" is dumb. And with time, the slate might be pretty clean if the evidence demands it.

I am still correct, calling the best explanation with the current evidence a "fact" is dumb. And with time, the slate might be pretty clean if the evidence demands it.

Do you think calling electromagnetism the best explanation for current flow through a copper wire when subjected to a voltage drop from one end to the other a fact is dumb? Do you think calling gravity the best explanation for a falling body is dumb?

The development of more efficient lungs, including the flow-through ventilation no only found in birds, would make such large beasts possible..

There is some evidence of higher oxygen levels, but this is not well-established. What is well-established is more efficient lungs and more energetic animals. (Haversian canals are found in many dinosaur bones, indicating an active and energetic lifestyle)

Carbon dioxide levels were higher then, and so things were warmer.

Sounds interesting...

Increase in size is limited by the fact that bones increase in strength by the square of their length, but body mass increases as the cube of the length. However:

Those four-legged titans of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, 200 million–65 million years ago, had a suite of specializations that enabled them to reach such immense proportions. With long necks, wide-opening jaws and rake-like teeth, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and their ilk swept their heads through the treetops, consuming vast amounts of foliage without expending a lot of energy moving their massive legs. Adaptations of the pelvis and limbs created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft, and hollowed-out vertebrae and relatively small heads lightened the load. Their specialized bone development made it possible for juvenile sauropods to grow quickly, putting on several tonnes per year.

Palaeontologists have long thought that these anatomical novelties arose with the large sauropods — that a burst of evolutionary specializations coincided with the explosion in size. But a slew of discoveries in recent years reveals that many important changes first showed up long before, among the relatively puny forerunners of sauropods known as the early sauropodomorphs. Paul Barrett, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, calls this group "the unsung members of the dino community".

Walking upright on two legs, the early sauropodomorphs looked nothing like the lumbering beasts that came to dominate later. But these small creatures and their descendants gradually acquired adaptations that changed how they ate, moved and breathed — in ways that would later enable sauropods to achieve their sizehttps://www.nature.com/news/2011/110713/full/475159a.html

That's an error. Muscle strength increases as the cube of its length. So matches the increased mass.

Same argument goes for giraffes. How do they do it? All blood vessels have one-way valves in them, to prevent blood from reversing. The valves in the neck vessels of giraffes are very robust,preventing very high blood pressures. So probably the same adaptation in sauropods.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq8CHFGJ0aI

They were remarkably light for their size, and aerodynamically were certainly capable of flying. The first ones must have been rather clumsy, being aerodynamically stable with long tails like that of a kite. Later ones were aerodynamcally unstable, and therefore very maneuverable.

I suggest you look for Steven Vogel's Life's Devices. It will be enlightening.

Yes, I understand the idol of the ever evolving theory of evolution can and will account for any and every problem or evidence against it, by simply claiming adaption and evolution resolving all such. Which it always does and will continue to do, regardless of how well the straight testimony of scripture regarding creation and the flood also resolves the problems, or fit the evidence. The real issue being addressed and played out in the creation evolution debate is faith as always. Evolutionists demonstrate and continually support faith in fallen humanities powers of observation and conclusion as the highest authority, while creationists continually demonstrate faith in the word of God and conclusions drawn from observation in relation to its testimony, as the highest authority. Evolution exalts the testimony of humanity, creation exalts the testimony of God.

Two main camps exist in paleontology today, each having a different view of what killed the dinosaurs and other organisms at the K-T boundary. Controversy has surrounded the topic since 1980; it has become difficult for the public (and the scientific world at large) to understand the issue due to the tangled assemblage of data which seems to point in many different directions. Luckily, the controversy has not harmed the study of mass extinction causation, but rather has made it a dynamic and interesting area. Every groundbreaking new hypothesis makes new headlines in the media, and excites researchers to delve further into the mystery.

The major sides of the schism can be broken down (greatly simplifying the issue, but making it more accessible) into "intrinsic gradualists" and "extrinsic catastrophists." We'll describe each generalized group in turn, and then try to synthesize the available information so you can form your own opinion. But first, let's outline what scientists generally agree that we know about the K-T boundary.

Where is God or scriptural testimony in the above? Neither is even considered. The following sentence from the above correctly identifies what evolutionary theory really is, in relation to the scriptures and God. Emphasis mine, "We'll describe each generalized group in turn, and then try to synthesize the available information so you can form your own opinion." Evolution is the opinions of fallen humanity juxtaposed to, or in contradiction to the word of God. The latest and most subtle, flexible, and deceptive idol created by fallen humanity in defiance of God and His word.

The third extinction theory not mentioned in the above quote, is of course extinction by the global flood described in scripture. This theory explains the conditions necessary to the formation of fossils better than all others proposed. It is supported by the majority of the evidence concerning fossils, which I have demonstrated on these boards before, are generally acknowledged to be related to flood conditions and rapid burial due to the same. Many fossils also demonstrating physical signs associated with drowning and or being almost instantly captured and entombed unto fossilization. Both of which are more likely to have happened in a global flood than any of the other scenarios presented, saving the same conditions produced over and over in smaller more localized floods. Nevertheless, these fossils being found all over the world, is obviously suggestive of a global flood rather than countless localized floods. This considering the fact that were not just talking about evidence of dinosaur extinction, but evidence of mass catastrophic destruction of all varying life forms found all over the world. The bible's flood account is an obvious and excellent explanation of said evidence. Todays modern idol worshippers of the evolutionary theory will not go there though, they have chosen another faith.

There was global climatic change; the environment changed from a warm, mild one in the Mesozoic to a cooler, more varied one in the Cenozoic. The cause of this climate change, and the speed at which it proceeded, are the major concerns of both schools of thought.

The above quote is from the same link provided in my last post. Again, the biblical account of creation and the flood addresses the above points, but is not considered by those worshipping at the feet of the evolution idol. According to scripture the entire world was completely changed by the global flood, and all life not spared in the ark came to a catastrophic end. Exactly as the evidence under examination at this link suggests. The catastrophists of the evolutionary theory are of course more in line with creationists on this one, though not intentionally as is obvious.

2 As well as a permanent global climatic change, there is evidence that there were less lasting changes at the end of the Cretaceous period. These changes may have been the result of a massive terrestrial disturbance, which threw up soot into the air, causing short term acid rain, emission of poisonous gases, and cooling (similar to a nuclear winter). Long term consequences would have been a global greenhouse effect (warming and reduced sunlight).

More of the same, from the same link. All of the above is easily deduced as consequence of the global flood described in scripture. Of course there would be less change in the world after a global flood changing everything at once. God Himself promising that this would never happen again. The next time this world will completely change all at once, will be when Christ returns and the world is destroyed by fire.

The flood produced torrents of rain for the first time, and also included the fountains of the great deep being broken up, that is released into the atmosphere under immense pressure from the same. This shooting massive amounts of water and other materials high into the earths atmosphere and producing the exact conditions described by the idol worshippers of the link above. All of this of course is nit even considered y those who place their faith in fallen human observation at contradiction to the word of God. The following links provide a theoretical scale of such produced by the global flood.

3 As discussed before, many organisms; both marine and terrestrial, vertebrate and invertebrate; went extinct. The reason for this extinction was probably this climate change.

4 At or near the K-T boundary in several places around the globe, we have a thin layer of clay with an unusually high iridium (a rare metal similar to platinum) content. This may be evidence for the dust cloud in #2 above.

Both of the above from the same link are again easily accounted for in the biblical scenario of creation and the global flood. The biblical account is simply rejected in favor of speculations of fallen humanity.

Do you think calling electromagnetism the best explanation for current flow through a copper wire when subjected to a voltage drop from one end to the other a fact is dumb? Do you think calling gravity the best explanation for a falling body is dumb?

If you read what I wrote, i am not calling the best explanation dumb. I am saying calling it a "fact" is dumb.

And if you were aware of electromagnetc theory, you would know that the current does not go "through" a wire, it travels largely long the outside and to an an interior depth known as the skin depth. In electrical substations bus bar (or metal piping) is largely used due to this principle.

Equus capensis was a Zebra species that lived during the Pleistocene and even into the Recent. It died out about 12,000 years ago. This species is sometimes referred to as the “cape zebra”. It was larger than zebras of today. Equus carpensis was about 1.9 m. (6.2 feet) tall at the shoulder. (Low estimate) Fossils of E. capensis have been found in South Africa.

Fossilized remains of Equus capensis have been discovered in Equus Cave in the Taung district of Northwest Province in South Africa. This cave was excavated in the years 1978-1982 by Beaumont (of McGregor Museum) and Shackley. Fossils have also been unearthed at the Elandsfontein site in South Africa.

The study used bones from caves to identify new horse species in Eurasia and South America, and reveal that the Cape zebra, an extinct giant species from South Africa, were simply large variants of the modern Plains zebra. The Cape zebra weighed up to 400 kilograms and stood up to 150 centimetres at the shoulder blades.

A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds. Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.

No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a case of intelligent design instead of “microevolution” (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or “macroevolution” (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).

The Cavanaugh et al. (2003)14 hypothesis of intrabaraminic variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned.

Addendum

According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000. He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem.26 But this faith did not help him in the end, and will not help any other evolutionist either, as this calculation is based on the origin of positive mutations, even before natural selection would start to work. If all electrons in the universe (about 1080) would have participated in 1012 reactions every second, during the 30 billion years which evolutionists have put as the upper age limit of the universe, there would still not have been more than c. 10110 possibly interactions—still a long way from the Huxley calculation.1

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

She found red blood cells, then was told to find evidence that they were not, for obvious reasons. So she did. she came up with a faulty theory concerning blood cell preservation by iron, which theory Mark Armitage debunks in the following address -

Just how those collagen sequences sur­vived tens of millions of years is not clear. Schweitzer suggests that as red blood cells decay after an animal dies, iron liberated from their hemoglobin may react with nearby pro­teins, linking them together. This crosslink­ing, she says, causes proteins to precipitate out of solution, drying them out in a way that helps preserve them. That’s possible, Collins says. But he doesn’t think the pro­cess could arrest protein degradation for tens of millions of years, so he, for one, re­mains skeptical of Schweitzer’s claim. “Pro­teins decay in an orderly fashion. We can slow it down, but not by a lot,” Collins says...........................................

Still, his work, too, suggests that colla­gen fragments can survive for astonishing periods of time. Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s team is going beyond collagen. In a 2015 paper in Analytical Chemistry, her group reported isolating fragments of eight other proteins from fossils of dinosaurs and extinct birds, including hemoglobin in blood, the cytoskeletal protein actin, and histones that help pack­age DNA. Comparing those se­quences from many different species could reveal evolution’s handiwork over geological time, much as studies of an­cient DNA do today.

Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who lead the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a gravid female when she died.[3]

RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.

Schweitzer and her collaborators detailed their findings in a paper released online October 16 in the journal Bone and in a talk given October 17 in Raleigh at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. “Here’s the data in support of a biofilm origin,” Schweitzer said in her presentation as she showed a blank slide. “We haven’t found any yet.”

You were misled about that. It's just a large species of zebra, a member of the genus Equus, modern horses.

Quote

A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds.

The existence of numerous transitionals and genetic data show common descent for all equids. Would you like to learn more about that?

Quote

Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.

No, that's wrong, too...

If you'd like some detail on specific transitions, let me know. There are a lot of them.

Quote

No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved,

That's wrong, too. The transition was rather slow for a long time, with a lot of transitional teeth. Would you like to talk about those?

From the Horse's Mouth: Teeth Reveal Evolutionhe first horses in North America emerged about 55.5 million years ago. They were small, fox-size animals with four toes and low-crowned teeth. They lived in a warm, moist, forested environment, and the wear on their rounded cusps matches those of fruit-eaters, Mihlbachler said.

Around 33 million years ago, the horses' teeth changed noticeably, with the cusps of a fruit-eater being replaced by the sharper points associated with a diet of leaves. By this time, the rain forests had disappeared and the climate went through a cool spell.

"The signal we are getting in the change in horses' diet is very consistent with what we understand about how the climate was changing," Mihlbachler said.

About 18 million years ago, the teeth of some ancient horses, those most closely related to modern horses, changed markedly. The surface of their molars became more complex and better suited for chewing tough plants, particularly grasses, which contain particles of silica that can wear down teeth. The teeth also began growing taller. [Mystery of Tooth Strength Cracked]

These changes appear to be related to the spread of grasslands, which prompted some horses to add grass to their diets.

"The changes in the teeth are just slightly behind the environment and dietary trends, which is very consistent with the hypothesis of adaptation," Mihlbachler said.

After this, tooth height continued to increase, likely in response to harsher, particularly colder, climate conditionsand the continued spread of grasslands. Horses with less abrasive, leafy diets stayed in the picture for a while, then disappeared about 10 million years ago.

Intermediate diets later disappeared, and the highly abrasive, grassy diets of modern horses have been the norm for the last 4 million to 5 million years, roughly the amount of the time the modern horse has been in existence.

Quote

According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000.

Nope. You're assuming horses evolved from a unicellular organism, but they evolved from primitive ungulate. Let's take a look at your assumptions:

1. Assume 10,000 individuals in each horse species. (most have had millions, but let's err on the side of small numbers.2. There are usually dozens of mutations in each individual. But let's just say there was an average of 10.3. So that means 100,000 mutations in one generation, or about 100 per generation4. If we assume a new generation every 10 years, that means in 55,000,000 years, there have been about 5,500,000 generations,which means 550,000,000 favorable mutations, far more than needed.

Quote

He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem.

That's how favorable mutations work. They tend to be preserved, because they increase the likelihood of an individual living long enough to reproduce. The neutral ones don't do much, and may or may not be preserved, and the bad ones tend to disappear.

This is one reason why the probablility argument is such a loser for creationists. Here's the other; given the genes of your great, great great grandparents, the likelihood of you having any particular allele is 0.25 to the 6th power or about 0.00002. The chance having all your alleles is: 6.6073302758056549920833976291965e-1807, basically 6, with 1807 zeros in front of it.

So now you've "proven" that you're impossible. You think something might be wrong here?

One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.

Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.152

While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of the evolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger brought the transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty of all.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153

Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.

A sketch showing the supposed evolution of the horse has appeared in nearly every textbook dealing with evolution. Typically, it illustrates a transition from Eohippus (size of a small dog, four toes on the front foot and three on the rear, possessing browsing teeth and found in Eocene strata) to Mesohippus (a slightly larger browser, three toes on the front, found primarily in Oligocene strata) to Merychippus (larger still, three toed but with grazing teeth, found in Miocene strata) to Pliohippus (pony sized, still with three toes and grazing teeth, found throughout the Pliocene) to modern Equus, or horse (with one toe, front and back, and with grazing teeth). Unfortunately, this presentation does not contain the whole truth.

In modem decades, the tree of horse evolution has been refuted and abandoned, in professional circles at least. Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, … Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986). Mr. Walt Barnhart, in his master's thesis (1987) at ICR, catalogued this overlap in 21 different genera with data from the evolutionary literature. Dotted lines represent uncertainties in dating. Most individual categories are known only from their teeth. It is hard to see any evolutionary sequence here.

A significant problem surfaced when Lou Sunderland observed (in Darwin's Enigma) that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Some series!

Furthermore, the Eohippus, more properly named Hyracotherium, is remarkably similar to the modern hyrax, a rock badger. The San Diego Zoo keeps a colony, where a sign identifies them as similar to the animal, which evolved into the horse and elephant. Others propose a hyrax-like ancestor for the sea cow also. Quite a family tree.

Dr. Duane Gish has observed (Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record) that during the time when four toes were supposedly evolving into one in North America, in South America a one-toed ungulate (a horse-like browser) was evolving into a three-toed descendant. Evolution theory, being as plastic as it is, can accommodate almost any series of fossils, and tell a good evolutionary "just so" story about how it all happened.

A better understanding of the fossil data would be to consider the 21 genera in Barnhart's chart as belonging to three created kinds. Each category is quite different, and there are no transitional forms between them. The evidence is quite compatible with the true history we read in Genesis.

This fictitious series was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.

Shortly afterward, inconsistencies within the horse series began manifesting themselves. New fossils dug up and attempted to be inserted into the false horse series became a problem. Because characteristics such as the fossils’ location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.

Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse series scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980 a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse series is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments: An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.

However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution’s explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously. ii

Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse series has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical series is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist and paleontologist who served as director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact in such a way as to find its way into school books:

I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153

Eldredge was commenting on the people who presented the evolution of horses as a ladder. His point was that it wasn't a ladder, but a bush, with many branches, only one of which survives today, not that he doubted that the evolution of horses. You probably never read the actual article, so when some dishonest person presented the edited part to you, it was easy to deceive you.

Awhile back I heard a brief news report about information released by scientists concerning a twenty year study of the Earth's topography and how much change occurred over a twenty year period of 1990 to 2010. Evolutionists would have us believe that this Earth formed and changed over billions of years. Well, scientists have noted dramatic changes taken place over a mere twenty year period. Evolutionists also believe in Santa Claus and still stand in line at malls to ask him for presents.

Awhile back I heard a brief news report about information released by scientists concerning a twenty year study of the Earth's topography and how much change occurred over a twenty year period of 1990 to 2010.

Nothing to compare to the sorts of things we see like erosion of mountains, rising of new ones, and canyons of rejuvenated rivers. Those take many millions of years.

Quote

Evolutionists would have us believe that this Earth formed and changed over billions of years.

So the evidence shows.

Quote

Well, scientists have noted dramatic changes taken place over a mere twenty year period.

No mountain ranges suddenly emerging or wearing down. No Grand Canyons suddenly being cut out. Some things take a very, very long time.